campaignsfandomcom-20200223-history
Talk:Marijuana
What is this article? What is it's purpose? Please explain why this one-sided rant is here. - Nhprman 05:29, 8 July 2006 (UTC) * Because it is topical at the moment and we need more people to contribute. Perhaps it could be titled more effectively... --MUnky 05:37, 8 July 2006 (UTC) :*Oh, it's topical. But perhaps it can be less one-sided and a bit more balanced? The introduction, for starters. - Nhprman 06:00, 8 July 2006 (UTC) *I've included the arguments for decriminalization/legalization. Feel free to include points against decriminalization/legalization as you see fit. I don't see why I need to include the argument against it, for I could only come up with couple of limp points at best. --Bobcobb 21:36, 9 July 2006 (UTC) *Please do not delete arguments on the opposing side with which you disagree. That's vandalism. I certainly disagree with the other side, and find the arguments ludicrous, but won't delete them out of spite. This page is for citizens to decide which side makes the best arguments - and for common ground to be found, if possible. - Nhprman 14:56, 13 July 2006 (UTC) * I was making a correction to an incorrect statement. Yes, there is a possibility illegal drugs will not be pure. However legalization would solve this problem as it would come under regulation. The argument belongs in pro-legalization if anywhere, and in any case it's just FUD. Lets try to keep this as rational as possible without trying to mislead people away from the real issue. --Bobcobb 01:38, 15 July 2006 (UTC) Quotes ...a great way to load up the article with pro-stoner material. This article needs serious balance "dudes" and plastering it full of biased pro-pot quotes that make this (already lengthy) article over-long isn't the way to get it. Are we looking for truth, or advocacy? Should I now go out and find 50 quotes that overload YOUR quotes, just by sheer numbers? That's the same crap that goes on in politics now. I thought this site was about finding common ground and balance, and a NEW Politics, instead, it's a pro-leftist's issue-driven masturbatory fantasy. What a waste, just like stoners - Nhprman 02:52, 28 July 2006 (UTC) *Maybe you should put in the quotes from your sources. Obviously the person/people who submitted those quotes find value in opinons from authoriative sources. If that is important to some people to form their opinion on the issue, then you would be doing the article a favor by balancing the quotes. --TheChin! 16:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC) * Despite the anti-legalization claims that there hasn't been medical study, the quotes from medical journals, studies, and doctors prove otherwise. Midian 16:54, 28 July 2006 (UTC) * The problem is that this isn't a left/right issue Nhprman. This is a common sense issue. If you want to add your opinion and political beliefs to the article feel free. But in reality, there are many more pro-marijuana facts than those against it. The article pretty much shows that the arguments against it are weak at best. Getting pissed off because those who favor marijuana choose to express their viewpoints won't help your case. --Bobcobb 01:44, 2 August 2006 (UTC) :*''"there are many more pro-marijuana facts than those against it."'' is a rather silly claim, and makes a mockery of this Wiki. I would criticize an anti-drug person for saying the same thing here on this site. You're proving my point that the legalizers are intent on loading up this article with hundreds of "pro" "facts", in order to make your ludicrous statement seem perfectly natural - which is: that the evidence one way or the other is somehow OVERWHELMING, which it is not. I have to point out that this Wikia's main premise is that this kind of political rhetorical tactic is dishonest and WARPS elections by making them shouting matches, not discussions. Campaigns already lie, distort and create illusions about facts to sway voters. Can't we do something DIFFERENT on this Wikia? - Nhprman 05:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC) ::*I agree that this Wikia should be a discussion page, and not a shouting page. The idea is to present both sides of the argument so that the reader can get a global and balanced view of the issue, and from there form his/her own opinion. If you believe a statement does not belong on this Wiki, maybe you should try and rephrase it (as long as you give valid reasons to do so). I don't think the answer is to simply critisize the Wiki, but to fix it. -- Waldsen 13:34, 3 August 2006 (UTC) :::*What I don't want to do is get into an "edit war" with anyone. That's pointless. I'll leave it at making my point (which you, at least, seemed to get) and leave it at that, for now.- Nhprman 21:37, 4 August 2006 (UTC) ::::*I wasn't the one that added all of the quotes, in fact I would recommend trimming it down because there are too many quotes that are similar. However, regardless of this wiki's intent you have come here with an obvious agenda much like myself, and as long as you make generalized statements about marijuana users being "stoners" I will make statements based on the reality of the issue. You can scream about the con side all day, but it boils down to the fact that there are more pro-marijuana facts than con. However, since everyone is individualistic you could take the value of each fact with a grain of salt and determine your own stance, which is what this wiki is all about. If anyone has been shouting, it's you. If there are debates to be had, let us have them! I welcome a good debate. However, all I have seen is you complaining that we have loaded the pro side with too much information. Cmon mate, either give us a serious debate, add to your side of the issue, or stop posting. Your choice. --Bobcobb 02:02, 9 August 2006 (UTC) :::::*I want you to logically understand that "there are more pro facts than con" is an illogical statement, because anyone can say a statement is a "fact." The point of this wiki isn't to flood one side with statements to make that side of the issue appear correct. I can't put it clearer than that. I have no problem with both sides of this debate getting a full hearing, but one side cannot present 50 statements and the other have 15, giving the (false) appearance of truth to one side. This isn't a contest, it's a discussion. I'm not going to "load up" my side with words to compete, 'mate.' - Nhprman 03:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC) ::::::*Well, the sheer number of arguments defending a given position is not all that important anyway. It is possible that a reader could see 100 weak pro arguments and be convinced by the con position with a few well placed words. Although I agree with Nhprman in that the article should not become an "arms race", growing in number and not quality, I don't think the answer is to restrict the amount of arguments allowed. If they are informative facts (or enlightening opinions), then they serve a purpose on the article. Maybe the con side should work on some counter arguments, or simply make sure their case is well presented. Also, we could work on reducing the bulk of one position, if we find that ideas are repeated. -- Waldsen 03:21, 9 August 2006 (UTC) ::::::It's also important to mention that while it's not a race to come up with the most number of arguments, it is a factor of how many people from either side actually show up to contribute. If more people come to add content to one side or the other, or if someone has a great deal of experience dealing with an issue and has more to contribute, that's not an attack on the other side, it's simply an opportunity to keep up and articulate that position better. ::::::In the end, we need to focus on developing a policy proposal that everyone can agree with and help to implement. That's going to be where the real work is, not who can toss the most cards on the table at the beginning of the deal. Chadlupkes 04:50, 9 August 2006 (UTC) Tabs I'm going to try to add tabs to this article's format. My plan is to add the following divisions: *Background *Pro-legalization *Anti-legalization *Proposal *Perspectives Comments? This might take a day or so. Chadlupkes 17:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC) Perspectives is looking good. Next step is to divide up the page into background, pro, con and create a page for perspectives. Chadlupkes 20:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC) *I can't tell you how much I *like* this Tabbed look. It also makes the issue very clear and concise. Good work, Chadlupkes! - Nhprman 16:28, 5 August 2006 (UTC) ---- These tabs rock my socks off. Has there been any other articles done like this? This is incredible. Every article should look like this.Ferguson 23:11, 7 August 2006 (UTC) :Thanks. Let's make it a Project. Let us know what pages are getting too long and let's prioritize them in order of which ones need tabs the most. Chadlupkes 23:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC) Propaganda is rampant here I just checked back after being away from the article for about three weeks. The intro to the Background section is ludicrously biased in favor of legalized pot. This entire article is hopelessly biased and slanted. I wish you all luck. This project is pointless if it's an exercise in propaganda. - Nhprman 18:03, 29 August 2006 (UTC) :This is a wiki. If you don't like the way it is, be bold and fix it. Jfing[[Wikipedia:User:Jfingers88/Esperanza|'e']]rs88 18:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC) :The facts always come across in favor of reality. Call it propaganda if you want, but when writing an article about breathing air, the facts will be propaganda ludicrously biased in favor of it also. Midian 18:42, 29 August 2006 (UTC) ::That's not air you've been breathing. - Nhprman 05:17, 30 August 2006 (UTC) :::Thanks, that made me laugh, though the quote is "Do you think that's air you're breathing now?" :) Personally, I don't like smoking, tobacco or anything else. However, who are we to say that other people don't have the right to do with their body what they will? As long as it doesn't affect me, do whatever you want, breath smoke, breath air, drink alcohol, drink water. Midian 16:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC) ::::Everything one does affects everyone else. The libertarian nonsense that we are islands unto our own selves and have no effect on anyone else is absurd. And I don't get your "...breathing now?" reference. Is it from a movie? - Nhprman 03:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC) :::::I just scratched a cut on my arm and made it bleed. How does this affect you and should a law be passed to prevent this? Seriously, freedom is all about excerising our rights as long as we do not infringe on the rights of someone else. If you want to start removing rights, move to a communisty country and they'll be happy to show you what it's really like. Me, I like my freedoms, and other people's too, even if we don't agree on which one's are more important. Midian 17:36, 1 September 2006 (UTC) ::::::If you have HIV and wave your blood-spurting arm at me, you're going to be procecuted. No one has absolute personal rights. We have responsibilities to others, too, but people simply pretend we don't. You present false choices here. It isn't absolute, unfettered freedom OR absolute "communisty" slavery, as Ms. Ayn Rand, and you, would have us believe. There is a middle, reasonable ground. Until the last few decades, this was called "common sense." Today, it needs to be explained to people who want the right to live in a Stoned Society and are willing to sacrifice the concept of responsibility on the altar of self gratification. You're "I like my freedoms, and you can have yours" concept sounds utterly reasaonable to conservative ears, but it's often a fascade for a narcissistic, self-centered philososphy. - Nhprman 00:53, 2 September 2006 (UTC) :::::::Spraying HIV-carrying blood on people is a violation of their rights, and as such is not something you have the right to do. Whose rights do you violate by sitting in your living room getting stoned? These are two very different things. --whosawhatsis? 01:46, 2 September 2006 (UTC) :::::I believe that's a line from The Matrix... the dojo scene if memory serves. :::::I also don't use pot (or tobacco, or alcohol, or caffeine, for that matter), but are you saying that if I were to light up a joint in the privacy of my own home, that it would somehow contribute to the fall of our society? Sorry, but any harm that might cause to anyone other than myself (and maybe the tobacco industry) pales in comparison to the restriction of the civil liberties of others. --whosawhatsis? 03:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC) ::::::Does this claim of only individual harm extend to the right to consume ANY drug in the privacy of your own home, or just pot? Does this include other ACTIONS in your own home, or just smoking pot? If we could limit it to pot smoking, that is a managable discussion, and perhaps we can all agree that, like alcohol, maybe pot use in one's own home is not something we should all get riled up about. (Though maybe it still is, but that's better left for the discussion.) But I suspect this is a deeper, "Civil liberties" kind of issue, and the more important issue here is the claim of absolute privacy in one's own home, since you stressed that part emphatically. And that, of course, is ludicrous. There are a whole host of things one can do in one's own home that are dangerous to your neighbors, your community and your nation, not to mention yourself. - Nhprman 00:53, 2 September 2006 (UTC) :::::::Anything that has no effect on anyone else. Clearly, this does not extend to things like building an insufficiently-shielded nuclear reactor in the privacy of your own home. That has a clear effect on the neighbors, it violates their right not to glow in the dark. No such claim can be made for smoking marijuana. I like to use the Oliver Wendell Holmes quote as a rule of thumb, "The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins." --whosawhatsis? 01:46, 2 September 2006 (UTC)